I never thought the argument was that organic food is more beneficial nutritionally. I thought it is supposed to be <i>less harmful</i> overall. This is an important distinction.
We don't even fully understand the elements and combinations of substances that make up 'nutritious'. So the claims of the author that 'Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious' are demonstrably an overstatement.<p>It's funny how the author can exaggerate the studies findings like this while showing such disdain for others who respond to his exaggerated conclusion rather than address the studies findings directly. The study has some good information but I'd prefer to hear it from an author that wasn't so partisan to a particular view.
> "The Soil Association’s response, published in papers across the land, entirely disregarded the intent of the study and instead argued that organic food is better for the environment and contains less pesticides than non-organic food. But in the very first paragraph of the report, the team states that they aren’t looking at the impact on the environment of organic agriculture or the effect of pesticide use, both of which the FSA has extensively examined in other research."<p>> "The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific."<p>true, but the SA's response is an excellent marketing response. ple think what they're told, and if no one outright makes the claim about the environmental impact, then people will conclude, oh, it's already to eat non-organic.
There's a metafilter thread about this here:<p><a href="http://www.metafilter.com/83702/Cuz-Im-freefree-rangin" rel="nofollow">http://www.metafilter.com/83702/Cuz-Im-freefree-rangin</a>